Defense attorney talks pride and prejudices, risks and rewards

Jeff Morris is a partner at Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt LLP who focuses on federal criminal litigation, investigations and complex civil litigation. He earned undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Kansas.

How did you decide to become a defense attorney?

When I was in law school about 20 years ago, I was involved in a criminal justice clinic, so I worked in the Wyandotte County Prosecutor’s Office. So I got to see that side of it and was really interested in that side. But when I came out there just were no jobs. ...

And (Tom Bath at Bryan Cave LLP) offered me a job, which was tremendous. And at the time I thought I would do that for a while and then go be a prosecutor. And that never happened.

I worked with Tom and Jim Eisenbrandt at Bryan Cave. And Tom started his own firm, and then Jim, and I left in ’99 I think to join Berkowitz, which was just this — I think there were seven people? I worked from a folding table for a while; I shared an office with the office manager. And it was great. And once we made that move, I took to it.

What has kept you in the field?

The people keep me in the field. By that, I don’t mean just my clients, but my clients and their families, their companies and the people that you’re helping. That’s just really rewarding.

But on the other side, I wouldn’t do this if I didn’t get to work with really great people on the other side. And by the other side, I mean the prosecutors. They’re top-notch. They’re good people. The other defense lawyers in town are excellent. I get to work with almost all of them.

I could not personally ask for a better situation where I get to help people and companies deal with really messed up, stressful situations and try to be the person that helps them navigate rough waters — hopefully well. Not always in a way that leaves them happy but always leaves them in a way that they felt like their lawyer did his best, and his team — because it’s not just me, it’s a whole group — that we did our best and served them well.

What would you say is the most challenging part of your job?

Managing the expectations of people who are put in very stressful situations. ... Those stressors are enormous. And actually trying to manage those expectations and the very real emotion of that is hard because sometimes what I have to do is be very direct about unpleasant circumstances.

Let’s say, for example, an individual has violated the law and because of that violation is facing time in federal custody. So I’m going to navigate him or her, but then I’m going to navigate their spouse. I’m going to navigate their children. ...

And addressing all those multiple levels of expectations and just emotions, that’s the hardest thing. It’s also the best thing. ... That keeps me up. Court doesn’t keep me up. Trials don’t keep me up. But navigating the emotional response to what I do is difficult. That’s hard. And I always want it to be hard. Because if ever it’s not, then I’ve stepped off. ... I think we’re all cognizant that if and when there is a day when you kind of step off that and you’re not there, then it’s probably time to rethink what you’re doing.

The public probably tends to be harsh on big companies and people who run big companies. Do you sometimes find it hard to defend your clients against juries?

I think anybody that goes in front of a jury, whether it’s a company or an individual, in any circumstance, faces the possibility of prejudices. ... Whether you’re a company or not, you’re going to run into that. Sometimes with jurors, I — and some people have a different view of this — but man, I hit that head on. So when I’m trying to talk to potential jurors, I’ll talk to them about the fact that I might have some of those same concerns if I was them. ...

And there are two categories of those jurors. There’s one category of people that shouldn’t serve on a jury because they can’t be fair. And there’s another category of person that just carries those prejudices just like you and I do every day, and I’m happy to confront that because to me that’s all part of the conversation.

How does it feel to win and know that you convinced those 12 people who maybe came in with those prejudices?

It feels a bunch of things. One of my most recent larger cases was a mortgage fraud case in federal court, and there were over 50 counts. And in federal court, when they read the verdict, they read every count. So the jury read over 50 verdicts of not guilty, which took a long time.

Now, I’ve been on the other end of that where a jury has rendered 30, 40 verdicts of guilt. And it is crushing and exhausting because you’re already tired. So I’ve been on the end of it where it doesn’t go well, and you’re instantly in the mode of getting ready to explain to your client in the company of their family or whoever cares what all this means.

When you win, to use the word “good” is wrong because that’s not the word. You don’t feel elated because you’re typically exhausted. You feel a relief that this is someone that has been brought in and put under the biggest magnifying glass our system can put on them, and you helped them, and you helped that jury understand that in this instance, the government was wrong.

We’ve seen some prosecution of companies involved in the 2008 financial collapse, but do you think we’ll start to see prosecution of any of the individuals involved?

I would have to say probably not. I question whether that window of prosecution has perhaps passed. Prosecution is a competition of resources, and it’s not easy because you have to decide that I’m going to use my resources to pursue these offenses. And recently you’ve seen furloughs, and government resources are becoming limited. And I would have to question whether or not we would see a lot of continued individual prosecutions from what happened in 2008.

But I don’t know because the window changes every day. There’s always something new in the pipeline. There’s always something going on. And I’ve had plenty of instances where I’ve had a significant matter that’s under scrutiny, and we’re working very hard to explain it and make sure they understand it, and just as a matter of a shift of resources, shift of focus, those investigations stop. And they stop cold. We just don’t ever hear about them again. ...

I think prosecuting, at least at the federal level, is hard. I really respect the jobs that those people do because they have a lot of authority and discretion, but they also have a huge pipeline of people that want them to be involved. And you have to triage and decide what to do and what not to do.